God is an Impossibility

Interesting post, but the “QED” doesn’t follow. It is true that anything conceived by a human as God is not God (few theists would disagree), but following that with “God does not exist to humans” is a failure to understand religion’s object of worship. (Note: the word “object” is not used to designate an object or entity of any kind, but something much more, something beyond any such designation.)

Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.

Note I did not link ontology with the empirical at all. Ontology is beyond empirical possibility.
‘Ontology’ is restricted to pure reason, i.e. purely thoughts only.

It is advised to understand Kant thoroughly one need at least 3 years full time or 5 years part time reading and research on Kant’s philosophy. I have done the above.
So it is not easy to explain in few sentences to you how Kant demonstrated 'ontology is an impossibility.
Here is a clue to my point;

As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why ‘existence’ in never a predicate.

The idea of Ontology ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.
I have proven the Ontological God is an impossibility.
Thus ‘ontology’ is as a philosophical idea is an impossibility, i.e. impossible to prove any ontological essence can be real within an empirical-rational reality.

One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.

You are entangled with too much conflation here.

Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.

OTOH. my argument ‘God is an impossibility’ is based purely on reason and logic, i.e. thoughts only and not empirical at all.
Since my argument is merely by thoughts, reason and logic alone, there is no need for me to bring empirical evidence at all.
When I have proven ‘God is an impossibility’ it meant the question of God is a non-starter, i.e. the question of whether God exists or not need not have to raise at all. It is like there is no basis to try to prove whether a Round-square exists or not.

Since God is an Impossibility, there is no question of whether God exists or not.

Where theists are inclined to believe God exists as real, they are doing it based on pure faith, i.e. beliefs based not on empirical-rational justifications.

IF one insists God is real, then they need to bring the empirical evidence and justifications.

The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

I have proven with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility. If one insist otherwise, bring the empirical evidence to justify it empirically-rationally.

The only justification for God to “exists” is purely psychological, here is my point again,

The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

nb: Will deal with the other points in another post.

The Eastern spiritualities and philosophies has gone into great depths on this issue since thousands of years ago and had continuously improve on them to the present.
The first thing is one need to understand the natural inclination to the idea “I” and “All there is” are ultimately illusory. Note Kant’s there is no “I-in-itself” “Universe-in-itself” which the same with the non-theistic principles of Buddhism and the likes.

It is when one clings [naturally driven] to the “I” and “All there is” or “whatever there is” that a terrible angst is generated that drive one’s to seek psychological security and the easy solution is the idea of a God [the all powerful] as a panacea.

The question is how to deal with this angst without clinging to anything. This is how Buddhism came up with the concept of ‘nothingness’ ‘emptiness’ ‘dependent origination’ where there is no dualistic reality but rather the focus is on emergence of reality with the self [as non-self] in engagement with the flow.

Eastern philosophies often come up with seemingly parodoxical ideas, e.g.
‘Action without Action’
‘Fighting without fighting’
They are not contradictions but they have to be viewed in different senses alternating within different time in nano-seconds.

Besides theories based on real collective experiences, Buddhism and the likes focus critically to change the brain and mind via effective spiritual practices. The effectiveness of such practices is evident from the tons of research done on this subject.

The limitation is whilst these Eastern practices has benefits the more effective ones are limited to a small percentage of practitioners. So the solution is to make these philosophies and practices more accessible and practical for the masses without the religious attachments. I am optimistic this can be done with the potential of the exponential expansion of knowledge and information technology.

Kant did not rule out the a-priori synthetic but he differentiated whether the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the following;

  1. Empirical embedded and possible
  2. Non-empirical groundings

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the emprical, e.g. Science or Mathematics, then it is an empirical possibility.

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the non-emprical, then it is an illusion.
An illusion is an impossibility to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
The idea of a God is a-priori synthetic based on pure thoughts and reason, which is non-empirical, thus an illusion, therefore God is an impossibility.

With reference to the idea of God as an inevitable illusion, Kant wrote;

Prismatic, Your Kant quote did not differentiate between thw different types of a priori synthetic therefore it’s not a defense
to the argument , he simply states that. A non empirical conclusion is illusionary. That does not include thw pure categories of understanding . There are no different a priori types , only ones which are a priori and not a posteriori. A posterior types of propositions are derived from experience , a priori judgements are not.

He never said a priori jusgements are objective. He only said that assigning objectivity to non experiential , or a posterior. Judgements are illusionary. That is a different type of judgement, however I can see how his terminology in that quote may lead to a confusion

Thank you.

Prismatic 567.

Again:

Considering all the talk about Kant and his philosophy, it would be easy for a casual observer to erroneously conclude that he was an atheist. He was not.

Prismatic simply misuses Kant - for particular reasons.

It is not easy to explain Kant in a few paragraphs and a few quotes.
You have to spent a reasonable amount of time to read and research Kant before you can understand [not necessary agree] Kant’s philosophy.

Two of his relevant works on this point are;

  1. The Critique of Pure Reason
  2. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science

In the Prolegomena Kant highlighted 3 Main Transcendental Problems related to Synthetic a priori judgments, i.e.;

1.0 The main transcendental problem.
1.1 How is pure mathematics possible?
1.2 How is pure natural science possible?
1.3 How is metaphysics in general possible?

Kant accept there is no issue with the possibility of Pure Mathematics and Pure Natural Science because they are embedded with intuition and a priori empirical elements that are linked to the empirical.

However, Is metaphysics to be possible? Kant do not accept it is possible within an empirical-rational reality because it contain no empirical-based elements, note the quote re B297 above.
However, Kant accept metaphysics can be ‘possible’ within pure thoughts and morality and this has to be confined within the bounds of Pure Reason only.

My point is DNA wise all humans has an inherent drive towards the continual improvement of morality.
The laws re banning of slavery by all recognized Nations is evidence to prove this trend of continual improvement in morality within humanity.

Obviously despite the laws on slavery by every Nation on Earth, there will always be people who will attempt to practice slavery illegally.
It is the same, despite Law of murder, there will still be murders going on.

The fact there are now Laws banning slavery as compared to 100 or 200, >1000 years ago is a reflection of improvement of Morality in action. Note Laws do not equate directly with Morality but they merely reflect the improving state of morality within humanity.

What will really denote real progress in Morality is when every human individual engages and aligns with his/her natural improving moral drive and naturally has the moral attitude that slavery is morally wrong. In this case we do have to rely on Laws but merely on the personal moral conscience of the individual.
At present such a state is seemingly an ideal, but it is possible for humanity to achieve such a state as done in instituting laws to ban slavery. This can be done more efficiently based on dynamic non-thestic approaches. Theistic base morals are immutable and too rigid to move with changing times.

Can the banning of slavery be a moral absolute?
I don’t agree with the absolutely-absolute, but human can rely on reason & rationality, philosophy & wisdom based on core human principles to derive the best pragmatic moral absolutes. Note for example the Golden Rule which is very rational and Confucius [551 BC – 479 BC] came out with it before any “God” [illusory] stated in the New Testament.
Slavery is argued based on the principle of basic human dignity where no human shall be owned by another.

In general, the practice of Morality and Ethics will be most efficient when managed objectively [not Thinkdr’s proposals of quantifying human values] within a Framework and Systems of Morality & Ethics. Humanity need to strive toward such an objective.

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned ‘theistic religion and evil’, then someone will definitely question “what about” secular “isms,” political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

All evils must be addressed and resolved.
I have a separate project to deal with evil in general encompassing ALL evils.
The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.
Since this section is ‘Religion and Spirituality’ to topic I have to confine to religious related evils and not secular-based evils, e.g. politics, drugs, social, gangs, guns, etc.

In the past and even now, “might is right” but I believe the inherent drive towards incremental and greater morality will prevail based on its evident trend of improvements over the last 200 years in terms of a range of human values.

Does that mean you are in favor of eugenics?

Yes, and the banning of slavery was, directly or indirectly, pushed ahead by religion-based values.

Here’s where the problem of evil raises its ugly head for non-theists: there’s no such thing as objective morals and ethics where there is no supreme Good.

Isn’t that reductionism? Was Einstein wrong to say, “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”?

Yes, and it is equally as common to see it dismissed.

I shouldn’t say so as all religion is and permits slavery

the opposite
supreme standard are the root of all evil = moral looseness before oneself

cause well hey we aint perfect right?
#-o

slippery trappery. lke chess against autist.

He was being coquettish

Trump accomplished reality in politics. Some do that most suck ad sucking inside politics is bad news.

Eugenics is generally related to superiority in terms of overall physical, mental and health.
Point is a person who is deficient in overall physical, mental and health can still have very high moral intelligence and qualities.
So my proposals re continual improvement of morality is not related to eugenics per se.

Note Fixed Cross’ point on this.
The holy texts of condoning of slavery as in the Quran is immutable. There is no way, Muslims as believers can go against Allah’s word to ban slavery. If they do, they will go to Hell.

There is no such thing as absolute objective moral rules floating out there to be enforced upon humans. But there are pragmatic absolutes which are objective.
I have argued ‘objectivity’ is based on intersubjective consensus.
viewtopic.php?p=2686574#p2686574
The golden rule with the consensus of ‘all’ humans is objective.
The banning of slavery as a law is objective.
There is no need for supreme Good, presumably for you is the Supreme God.
What is the point of proposing a Supreme God [illusory and impossible] that is supposed to be supreme Good which condone slavery and inspire all sorts of evil in a critical SOME theists.

You are way off point on this.

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.
But one is merely insulting one’s intelligence when dismissing [wave off] another’s hypothesis without proper arguments. The underlying reason for simply waving off another arguments is psychological in a subliminal detection of an existential threat.

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

No, you won’t. You like to cite psychology to support your position, but here’s an article in Psychology Today that refutes your claim, calling it a “scapegoat for deeper psychological problems.” The “new atheists” have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim. But I doubt you will accept that there is reason to dismiss your claim.

But it’s okay for you. That’s quite a double standard you have there!

So, that’s why you did it!

“New atheist” Where? Links?

I have done my own research into Islam [spent >3 years researching Quran and Islam] and found proofs that the Quran is inherently evil where Allah inspires Muslims to commit evil [as defined] on non-Muslims.

Where?

So, that’s why you did it!
[/quote]
Where?

You are supporting my point? - God is ultimately an absolutely perfect God.

I edited my last post. that one link should be enough (but I doubt it will).

So?